33 Quotes by Charles Moscowitz

Thirdly, state and federal judges, including the Supreme Court, refused to hear the over fifty cases that were filed claiming evidence of voter and ballot fraud. All of these cases, except one, were dismissed on technicalities which meant that the evidence was not heard in its proper venue, a courtroom, where it might have been vetted either way.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Texas vs Pennsylvania, a case in which Texas claimed that by unlawfully passing election laws, without the opportunity for the people of Pennsylvania to express their will through their legislative representatives, Pennsylvania had compromised the integrity of the voters of Texas by interfering in the election.

This, effectively, constituted a soft coupd’état.

There was no reason why the hearings over the 7 contested states could not have proceeded normally and the states could not have thus had their constitutionally mandated time allotted to publicly present and debate the causes of their respective election contestation. Instead, the process was cancelled and those who sought their constitutional guarantees to present their grievances were silenced and accused of crimes.

four states where the election was contested, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia, and possibly other states as well, had created election laws, under the guise of the COVID-19 19 pandemic emergency, without going through the constitutional process of having those laws debated and voted on by the respective state legislatures.

The US Constitution clearly delegates the authority to make election laws to the state legislatures. Yet, in those four states, governors, secretaries of state, state judges, possibly others, were making laws right up to the eve of the election and in the case of Pennsylvania even after the election.